Bergerson:Fact: there is no defined or proposed probability distribution that has been proposed for 'random mutations'.Fact: the claim that mutations are random does not meet scientific standards as a testable theoryFact: the claim that mutations are random is intentional scientific fraud.Fact: the DarwinDogmatists making this claim are engaged in intentional scientific fraud.

One will notice a couple of things (and these are even clearer if you read the thread linked to):

1. Bergerson disregards the "wrt" (with regard to fitness) in his "rebuttal." This is because Bergerson insists that 'random mutations' means that they will be randomly distributed throughout the genome.This is demonstrable NOT that there is fraud being committed by evolutionists that say otherwise, rather, it shows that Warren Bergerson is either monumentally ignorant of the things he discusses or is being purposefully dishonest. Or perhaps a little from each column.The "wrt" is an important modifier, one that Bergerson fails to acknowledge or understand, and hence it makes his response look even more ridiculous.

Further, you misrepresent how "Darwinists" (as opposed to Johnsonists? Beheists? Dembskiites?) 'define' random, and as a computer programmer that is also an expert at population genetics and all matters scientific, which is how you present yourself, I am amazed that you would make so elementary an error. Or perhaps it was not an error?

Anyway, a fairly simple cursory reading of nearly any evolutionary biology text or 'official' website will show the interested reader that 'random', to a "Darwinist", means that the mutations occur without regard to fitness.This is true. Producing sufficient variation within a population such that a 'good' variant will be available is not really non-random in the Johnsonian/Beheian sense, now is it?

What I always find interesting is the fact that creationists will claim that they know of biological circumstances that fit their idiosyncratic criteria for being 'non-random' or otherwise non-evolutionary, and then proceed to produce not an actual example, but some contrived analogy.

Why is that?

Could it be that, say, creationist computer programmers really only know about computer programming, then insist that biology (or any other field) is just like a computer program, therefore, they are really experts in biology, too?

Well, that is what Crevo did at the link he supplied:

"In computer science this is called non-deterministic programming. It's actually a rather good way to write parallel algorithms because you can do a search through a search space and it will scale easily just by adding computers.

And, in biology, that's exactly what you have. You have an environment, and a population trying to find the best genomic configuration for that environment. The individual organisms cannot "sense" the exact size of the population. Therefore, in attempting adaptational strategies, the best way to search the space is for each individual to search it randomly."

Crevo is not the only creatiopnist computer programmer to employ this sophism - David R.Pogge does the same, and I have written about his dishonesty and shoddy scholarship on this blog several times.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

And if it does not look like a nail, you redefine it, redescribe it, or misrepresent until it does.

Wait - it gets better (and by better, I mean worse):

"Wait... did I just say "search randomly"? Well, I did, but that's not quite the case. I could bore you with the probability arguments against how amazingly long it would take for a random walk in the genome to beneficially change just a few amino acids, but instead I'll leave that to Behe. I have personally made algorithmic objections to such random walks, which you can view at another website."

Hmmm... A link to the Behe paper that was shown to be a joke!

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/theory_is_as_th.html

And I have to wonder if your "algorithmic objections to such random walks" is as insightful and relevant as your 'paper' on information...

LOL!

Oh, I really liked this:

"Here are some of the strategies employed by genomes (or, more specifically, employed by God in genomes) mentioned in the paper (there are undoubtedly many more)"

Employed by God?

That is quite a leap, even for a computer programmer!

But not, I suppose, if you are also a creationist, desperately feeling the need to find 'scientific evidence' to prop up your faith.

So - any luck gathering evidence on the traits possessed by the ancestral species from which humans evolved such that ReMine's folly can even be applied?

"Anyway, a fairly simple cursory reading of nearly any evolutionary biology text or 'official' website will show the interested reader that 'random', to a "Darwinist", means that the mutations occur without regard to fitness.This is true."

"Anyway, a fairly simple cursory reading of nearly any evolutionary biology text or 'official' website will show the interested reader that 'random', to a "Darwinist", means that the mutations occur without regard to fitness. This is true."

I never said you were against 'directed mutagenesis.' In fact, creationists will try to claim nearly anything is really directed not because the evidence indicates it, but because their psychological preconceptions make them abhor the mere thought that thweir mightnot be 'plan and purpose' in life if change takes place "randomly."

Of course, stress or substrate induced mutagenesis is not really "directed", i.e., "non-random" in the same way that creationists need it to bve, is it?

Darwin understood this intuitively, and is why he insisted that change must be gradualistic. Philip Johnson talked in broad terms why such a directed process is counter to Darwinism:

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=6444

It is mere assumption that these change mechanisms could produce current species from a universal common ancestor. However, the creationist idea that these are variations within a kind works very well with constrained evolvability and the lack of power of random mutation plus natural selection.

By having a constrained search space for variation, animals are able to adapt and "fill the earth". There is ample evidence for this kind of variation, and none whatsoever for a genetic mechanism to produce universal common ancestry.

It is just more of the usual creationist redefinitions and equivocation games.Another religious engineer trying desperately to prop up his religious beliefs by shoehorning biology into his black box.Arguments via definition are unimpressive.

Sorry.

Darwin understood this intuitively, and is why he insisted that change must be gradualistic. Philip Johnson talked in broad terms why such a directed process is counter to Darwinism:

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=6444

And throw in a religious lawyer....

It is mere assumption that these change mechanisms could produce current species from a universal common ancestor.

It is mere assumption that that some 'designer' did it all.

No - actually it is mere apologetics and disinformation.

However, the creationist idea that these are variations within a kind works very well with constrained evolvability and the lack of power of random mutation plus natural selection.

But those are not assertions... No sirreee...

By having a constrained search space for variation, animals are able to adapt and "fill the earth". There is ample evidence for this kind of variation, and none whatsoever for a genetic mechanism to produce universal common ancestry.

More assertion - but this time, coupled with a denial of evidence.The 'constrained search space' [mathemagical mumbo jumbo to impress the lay folk] is really a consequence of physical and chemical properties of the molecules involved.I guess God, er, I mean, the 'designer', had that all planned out, eh?How convenient.